Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2002.6.6.033

Estimation of R-factor and Seismic Performance for RC IMRFs using N2 Method  

윤정배 (경상대학교 건축공학과)
이철호 (경남대학교 건축공학과)
최정욱 (전남대학교 건축학부)
송진규 (전남대학교 건축학부)
Publication Information
Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea / v.6, no.6, 2002 , pp. 33-39 More about this Journal
Abstract
Response Modification Factor(R-factor) approach is currently implemented to reflect inelastic ductile behavior of the structures and to reduce elastic spectral demands from earthquakes to the design level. However R factors were set empirically and simply based on the professional committee consensus on observed performance of building structures during past earthquakes. Consequently some major shortcomings linked to the current R factor approach have been pointed out. Using reinforced concrete intermediate moment-resisting frames(RC IMRFs), an analytical procedure is presented in this paper to establish R factor rationally. To this end, analytical R values were evaluated based on N2 Method and compared with the values recommended by IBC 2000. Overall, the analytical results correlated well with the code values. However the results also revealed that R factor might strongly depend on the system fundamental period. As evidenced by the interstory drift index(IDI) analysis results of this study, current R-factor based(or, Life Safety based) design tends to fail in fulfilling other implicit and hopeful performance objectives such as immediate Occupancy and Collapse Prevention. Performance based design(PBD) appears to be a promising approach to meet the multi level seismic performance objectives assigned to the building structures of nowadays.
Keywords
N2 method; IBC 2000; response modification factor; intermediate moment resisting frame; N2 method; IBC 2000; performance based design(PB); interstory drift index(IDI);
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Bertero, V. V., “Evaluation of response reduction factors recommended by ATC and SEAOC,” Proceedings of the Third U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Charleston, North Carolina, 1986.
2 Miranda, E. V. V. Bertero, “Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design,” Earthquake Spectra, EERI, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994, pp. 357-379.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 ACI Commite 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structure Concrete(ACI 318-99),” Portlane Cement Association, 1999.
4 IBC 2000, “International Building Code,” International code council, INC. 2000.
5 FEMA, “NEHRP guicelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings,” FEMA 273, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C, 1997.
6 FEMA, “NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures (Part 2 Commentary),” FEMA 303, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C, 1997.
7 ATC, “Structural response modification factors,” ATC 19, Applied Technology Council, 1995.
8 ATC, “Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings,” Applied Technology Council, ATC 40, Applied Technology Council, 1996.
9 FEMA, “NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures (Part 1 Provision),” FEMA 302, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C, 1997.
10 BSSC, “NEHRP recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for new buildings,” Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C., 1988.
11 한과박소프트(주), neoMAX-3D ver.2.0, 2001
12 Fajfar, Peter, “A nonlinear analysis method for performance- based seismic design,” M.EERI, 2000, pp. 573-592.
13 Betero, Raul and Bertero, D. V. V., “Performance-based seismic engineering : the need for a reliable conceptual comprehensive approach,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2002, pp. 627-650.
14 ATC, “Response modification factors,” ATC 3-06, Applied Technology Council, 1978.
15 ATC, “A critical review of current approaches to earthquake-resistant design,” ATC 34, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, 1996.